In Brief

An Advocate-on-Record made false allegations of malpractice against the Supreme Court's Registry, claiming it had colluded with the opposite party to hastily list a matter before a special bench (bench hunting). The allegations proved baseless—the listing was based on a judicial direction issued by the same bench. The Court found the advocate had acted as a 'pawn' of his client to shift the case away from the designated bench, constituting misconduct and contempt. Though the advocate tendered an unconditional apology, the Court held that apology alone cannot absolve misconduct when motivated by client interests over court duties. The advocate was barred from practicing as an Advocate-on-Record for one month, emphasizing that officers of the court owe a paramount duty to judicial integrity above client interests.

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.